ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

E
R

V I E W

D V A

C E

I N

What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy

Josiah Ober
Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305; email: jober@stanford.edu

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2008. 11:6791 The Annual Review of Political Science is online at http://polisci.annualreviews.org This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.112006.143750 Copyright c 2008 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 1094-2939/08/0615-0067$20.00

Key Words
classical theory, Greece, civic identity, political criticism, culture

Abstract
The question of what the ancient Greeks can tell us about democracy can be answered by reference to three elds that have traditionally been pursued with little reference to one another: ancient history, classical political theory, and political science. These elds have been coming into more fruitful contact over the past 20 years, as evidenced by a spate of interdisciplinary work. Historians, political theorists, and political scientists interested in classical Greek democracy are increasingly capable of leveraging results across disciplinary lines. As a result, the classical Greek experience has more to tell us about the origins and denition of democracy, and about the relationships between participatory democracy and formal institutions, rhetoric, civic identity, political values, political criticism, war, economy, culture, and religion.

67

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

WHO ARE WE?

It might appear, at rst glance, that there is no coherent scholarly or academic us who might be told something of value by studies of the ancient Greeks. The political legacy of the Greeks is very important to three major branches of scholarshipancient history, political theory, and political scienceand at least of collateral importance to a good many others (e.g., anthropology, communications, and literary studies). Ancient Greek history, political theory, and political science are distinct intellectual traditions with distinctive forms of expression. Very few theorists or political scientists, for example, assume that their audiences can read ancient Greek; few theorists or historians assume knowledge of mathematics, statistics, or game theory; few historians or political scientists are comfortable with the vocabulary of normative and evaluative philosophy. Moreover, each major eld contains considerable diversity in approaches to the Greek legacy. Ancient historians are variously committed to the positivist project of history for its own sake (Rhodes 2003a), and to selfconscious model building and theory testing (Ober 1996, ch. 2; 2005, ch. 8). Classical political theory concerned with democracy falls into what have traditionally been clearly demarcated approaches, notably Straussian (e.g., Orwin 1994, Kochin 2002); intellectual historical (Ober 1998, Allen 2000, Balot 2006); and critical/postmodern (Euben 1986, 1997, 2003). Within political science, comparativists have focused on how institutions enable credible commitment to law (Schwartzberg 2007), whereas IR theorists tend to focus on the value of Thucydides analysis of power and conict (Lebow 2003). So the whole enterprise of learning about democracy from the Greeks may fall victim to an all-too-familiar Academic Tower of Babel syndrome. Yet this seems to be less true than it once was. Although there is still a great deal of scholarly work on Greek democracy that is done strictly within a particular academic eld

and subeld, there appears to be a growing awareness by some specialists within each of the three primary elds (ancient history, political theory, political science) of work done in at least one, and sometimes both, of the others. Thus, a few ancient historians with a primary interest in democracy are beginning to employ the methodologies of game theory and rational choice (Quillin 2002, Teegarden 2007, Ober 2008) and to engage extensively with political theory (Allen 2000, Balot 2001, Ober 2005). Work on Greek democratic institutions by social scientists, especially in the area of political economy, makes extensive use of contemporary scholarship on ancient history (Fleck & Hanssen 2006, Kaiser 2007). Many classical theorists are accomplished philologists with a mastery of both language and culture, and have become very sophisticated in their approach to historical context. Essay collections, some arising from conferences and symposia, bring together political theorists and Greek historians (Dunn 1992, Euben et al. 1994, Sakellariou 1996, Ober & Hedrick 1996). There has, so far, been less formal interchange between ancient historians and political scientists working on Greek democracy, but this is likely to change now that several classical historians who work on Greek democracy have been appointed to political science departments (Danielle Allen: Chicago; Giulia Sissa: UCLA; Ryan Balot: University of Toronto; Josiah Ober: Stanford). It is increasingly common for political theorists who work on classical theory to be cross-appointed in departments of classics (Peter Euben: Duke; Sarah Monoson: Northwestern; Arlene Saxonhouse: Michigan). It is becoming easier for scholars to familiarize themselves with the essentials of the interdisciplinary eld of classical democracy studies. Several recent and forthcoming handbooks on classical political thought (Rowe & Schoeld 2000, Balot 2006) deal extensively with Greek democracy and reect the cross-fertilization between history and political theory. Meanwhile, readers (Rhodes

68

Ober

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

2004, Robinson 2004, Raaaub et al. 2007) focusing on the history of Greek democracy allow theorists and political scientists to gain a grounding in historical approaches to Greek democracy. The study of classical democracy, especially in the academic elds of history and intellectual history, is an international enterprise, in which English-language scholarship is only a fraction (although a large one) of the literature.1 I focus here on Anglophone scholarship, but important work by continental European scholars has been translated into English (examples are cited below). Good introductions to European traditions of scholarship on Greek democracy are provided by Bleicken (1985) and Kinzl & Raaaub (1995) in German; Moss (1986) in French; Nardi e (1971) and Camassa (2007) in Italian; and Adrados (1997) in Spanish. Democracy rst emerged in a very extensive ecology of 1000 city-states (Hansen & Nielsen 2004, Hansen 2006) geographically centered on the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Those city-states ( poleis) shared a language and core cultural characteristics, but differed in size, government, and economics. The study of ancient Greek democracy inevitably focuses rst on Athens, the most prominent and well documented of the Greek city-states. Athens remains the model case study (Creager et al. 2007), but it is important to keep in mind that Athens was exceptionalmuch larger, more prosperous, and more inuential than the median Greek polis. (For thoughtful discussions, see Brock & Hodkinson 2000; for a survey of the evidence, see Hansen 2006.) Scholarly opinion differs as to how many of the 1000 city-states that existed in the classical era (ca. 500325 B.C.) were democratic. Robinson (1997 and 2008) has collected and analyzed the evidence for ancient Greek democratic in-

stitutions and ideology outside Athens. The best documented of the major non-Athenian democracies were Sicilian Syracuse (Rutter 2000, Robinson 2000) and Peloponnesian Argos (Pi rart 2000). e Many poleis were oligarchies. Ostwald (2000a) offers a concise discussion of oligarchy as a constitutional form, but more analytic work on Greek oligarchy is called for. The most prominent Greek oligarchy, and the state with which democratic Athens is most often and most fruitfully compared, was Sparta. Yet Sparta, in its rejection of private wealth as a primary social differentiator, was a peculiar kind of oligarchy (Cartledge 2001 is the best available introduction). Other poleis were ruled by tyrants. We lack a good, recent, English-language survey of Greek tyranny, but important aspects of tyranny are discussed by McGlew (1993), with a focus on culture, and by Lavelle (2005), with a focus on tyranny in predemocratic Athens. The complexities of the democratic Athenian engagement with the idea of tyranny are well explored by Steiner (1994), who sees the technology of writing as critical, and in the essays on the idea and practice of popular tyranny collected by Morgan (2003).

HISTORY OF THE QUESTION

The question what can we learn from ancient Greek democracy? dates back to Greek antiquity. Roberts (1994) offers an erudite and well informed survey (see also Hansen 1989). Nelson (2004) has shown that the Greek political tradition was inuential in European thought in the fteenth through eighteenth centuries, yet he argues that Platonic elitism rather than participatory democracy was the central theme of this work. It was not until the nineteenth century that Athens and its democracy were taken as a positive model by political thinkers. The revolution is closely associated with the great Greek history of George Grote (1869, Vol. 1 appeared in 1846), although Murray has recently shown that some of Grotes ideas were anticipated
69

For a sense of the international scope of classical scholarship on democracy, see the relevant sections of the standard annual bibliography, LAnn e Philologique e (http://www.annee-philologique.com/aph/).

www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, who still remains better known as the originator of the Gothic novel (Bulwer-Lytton & Murray 2004). The impact of Athenian democracys concern with civic education and innovation on the thinking of the greatest nineteenth-century theorist of representative democracy, J.S. Mill, has been brilliantly recovered by Urbinati (2002). The dark story of how certain German ancient historians reworked the history of Athenian democracy in the Nazi era is told by N f (1986). In the twentieth century, the two a most inuential Greek-oriented political theorists writing in America, Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss, had a highly problematic relationship to the question of learning from ancient Greek democracy. On Arendt and Greek democracy, see Villa (2000), with essays by Villa, Kateb, and Euben, and Markell (2006); on Strauss, see Zuckert & Zuckert (2006) and Stow (2007). Moses I. Finley, an American who founded an important school of thought at the University of Cambridge, stands out among twentieth-century ancient historians who have engaged directly with social science. Finley (1985) referred to the success of Athens under the democracy in order to challenge the validity of Robert Michels Iron Law of Oligarchy and to counter the arguments of twentieth-century democratic elitists such as Walter Lippman and Joseph Schumpeter. Finleys Oxford University rival and critical interlocutor, the Marxist ancient historian Geoffrey de Ste. Croix (1972, 1983, 2004), was also an enthusiast for Athenian democracy, arguing that the struggle for and against democracy dened the cutting edge of the class struggle in the ancient Greek world. Meanwhile, in the United States, the Yale ancient historian Donald Kagan, now famous as an intellectual leader of the neoconservative movement, saw Athenian democracy as a manifestation of its aristocratic leadership, most notably Pericles (Kagan 1991). Finley, Ste. Croix, and Kagan each inuenced many younger historians.

DEFINITION AND ORIGINS

Ancient Greek democracy has long offered students of political regimes a sort of whetstone against which they may sharpen their own denitions. The Greek word d mokratia e conjoins kratos, a term for power, and d mos, a e term for the people. Thus, Greek democracy is typically and rightly seen as differing from most modern forms of democracy in its emphasis on the direct participation of ordinary people in collective self-governance. Yet the question remains, power and people in what sense? One way to approach this denitional question is to ask when and why the term d mokratia was coined. One e school of thought, represented by the Berkeley Greek historian Raphael Sealey (notably 1987), argues that democracy was a midfth-century (thus quite late) coinagea term of abuse, made up by Athenian democracys internal enemies to claim that popular rule was arbitrary power wielded by the lower-class citizens. Thus, for Sealey, the original denition of democracy was something like mob domination. Sealey holds that the signal political achievement of the ancient Greek world was not inventing a form of popular rule, but establishing the rule of law (see also Ostwald 1986). Yet, as the prolic and inuential Danish historian of Greek institutions, Mogens Hansen (1986a), points out, it is likely that d mokratia was an approbative term, used in e the early fth century and perhaps even in the revolutionary era of the last decade of the sixth century. Although Sealey is right to say that ancient critics of popular rule dened democracy as simple (and brutal) majoritarianism, this is not how the term was ordinarily used by democrats themselves. On the basis of a comparison with other Greek regime terminology, it appears that the original meaning of democracy was the capacity of a public, consisting of all native adult males, to accomplish things of value in the public realmthus the empowered people rather than simply the power of the people (Ober 2006a). The

70

Ober

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

means by which the demos accomplished its collective end changed over time. The formal constraints of constitutional law were increasingly recognized as instrumentally valuable in sustaining that essential collective capacity, rather than being seen as a diminution of the peoples power. A second issue of denition concerns the legitimacy of applying the term democracy to a slaveholding regime in which the political franchise was limited to men. Although such a regime would not be regarded as democratic in the twenty-rst century, the fact that the basic constitutional rules regarded as fundamental to modern democracy antedate the abolition of slavery and womens suffrage suggests that it would be counterproductive to lump all premodern states into the category forms of domination from which we are unlikely to have anything (positively) to learn. Where does democracy come from? Given that Greek democracy is the earliest known case of the emergence of this form of governance in a complex society, the question of its origins is of particular interest. Democracy in the Greek context is best understood as a strong form of Greek republicanisma system in which a substantial part of the native male population enjoys full political standing (active citizenship), based on an assumed rough equality of public standing among citizens. Republics of this sort reject the political monopoly of very small and restrictive bodies of elites, but they also reject the participation of persons below a certain socioeconomic level. The citizens of a standard Greek republic are the metrioithe middling men. The most familiar is the hoplite republic, in which the franchise is monopolized by those native males who possess sufcient resources, as judged by the possession of real estate (usually agricultural), to provide themselves with the panoply of the heavyarmed infantryman (hoplite). Morris (1996) argues that in the seventh and early sixth centuries B.C., regimes dominated by metrioi became standard in Greece, and the associated ideology celebrating martial values, moder-

ation, polis patriotism, and self-control won out over an alternative ideology (on which see Kurke 1992) that celebrated elitism and luxuriousness, and looked to the non-Greek East for political and behavioral models. By the later sixth century B.C., a number of poleis had developed institutions later associated with full democracy at Athens most notably a deliberative popular council (Robinson 1997). What factors inuenced a given Greek republic to make the move to more full-edged democracy? Fleck & Hanssen (2006) develop an economic model for archaic Greece, which predicts that democratic institutions will expand where they mitigate important time-inconsistency problems and, therefore, encourage investment. The key exogenous factor Fleck & Hanssen identify as inuencing time-inconsistency is geography. In regions (such as Spartas core territory) where large, open plains allow efcient monitoring of labor, democracy will fail to develop because wealth can be generated through command and control. In other regions, such as the territory of Attica, in which broken terrain hinders the monitoring of labor, democratic institutions provide the necessary incentives to promote robust economic growth. The model might be tested by expanding the evidence base to other city-states. Accounts of the development of democracy at Athens written by ancient historians often focus on historically contingent factors. At Athens, there were several stages in the development of the political institutions that become the central features of the fully developed democracy of the fth century. The reforms of the lawgiver Solon in 594 B.C., devised to avert a social crisis, gave Athens its rst comprehensive code of law. Comprehensive lawcodes are rare in archaic Greece; the only other example is from the relatively obscure Cretan polis of Gortyn (Holkeskamp 1992, 1999). Solons reforms eliminated enslavement of Athenians by Athenians, established rules for legal redress against overreaching magistrates, and assigned political
71

www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

privileges on the basis of productive wealth rather than noble birth. A recent oruit of work on Solon has claried his role (see Blok & Lardinois 2006, and Wallaces chapter in Raaaub et al. 2007). Solons laws were respected, in principle, by the tyrants who took control of Athens in the mid-sixth century (Lavelle 2005). The next major institutional changes in the direction of democracy took place in the last decade of the sixth century, in the aftermath of the collapse of the tyranny. Conict between two aristocratic families competing for domination led to a Spartan invasion in 508 B.C., a successful uprising against the Spartan occupiers and their Athenian supporters, and the institution of a series of substantial political reforms in the aftermath. This series of events has been described as the Athenian Revolution (Ober 1996). A long generation later, in 462 B.C., the Areopagus Council (a council of former magistrates) was stripped of its authority to veto decisions made by the citizen Assembly. By the mid-fth century, all of the institutions associated with radical democracy (see Millet 2000 for why the label radical is misleading) were in place, including pay for many forms of political participation. Substantial institutional reforms were made in the late fth century and through the fourth (Hansen 1999). Although Eder (1995) argues that democracy at Athens did not truly emerge until the fourth century B.C., the mainstream debate has focused on the relative importance of the events of 594, 508, and 462; that debate is laid out in detail by Raaaub et al. 2007. The democratic-origins debate is concerned in the rst instance with dening democracy. The sequence of events and the institutional development of Athens are tolerably well understood; the question is what developmental stage is rightly described as democracy. The question of dating remains important, however, because it answers the following questions: Is democracy the result of an individuals plan (594) or of the collective actions of a large and diverse body of persons (508)? Did democracy arise before
72 Ober

(594, 508) or only after (462) Athens became a dominant imperial power? Is the inclusion of subhoplite (lower-class) natives as active citizens a long-term result of law and constitutional changes (594), an immediate effect of revolutionary action (508) enabling an unprecedented mobilization (and thus imperial power), or an unintended by-product of interclass negotiations arising from the states need to mobilize military manpower (462)? My own position is that the right date for the emergence of democracy is 508 and the years immediately following, a date that I believe is consistent with the basic denition of democracy offered above. The question of whether democracy is originally the result of revolutionary action or of institutional normalization has remained important in political theory in part because of the inuential work of Wolin (1993, 1994, 1996) on historical/theoretical questions of Greek democracy.

INSTITUTIONS
Until the mid-nineteenth century, the operations of Athenian democracy were largely mysterious. Early modern political theorists (e.g., Hobbes and Rousseau) and constitutional designers (e.g., the American Founders) were careful readers of classical literary texts, notably Thucydides, Plato, and Plutarch, but had neither the resources of critical history nor much in the way of documentary evidence. Grotes (1869) painstaking recuperation of Athenian democratic history was an inuential and substantial advance; Grotes interpretation of democratic institutions was based on an exhaustive analysis of available sources and is amazingly insightful. Still, much about the workings of democracy remained obscure until the twentieth century, when a mass of new evidence came to light. Thanks to the dedicated work of twentieth-century historians in analyzing new literary nds (especially the Aristotelian Constitution of Athens, recovered in a nearcomplete papyrus copy in 1890), numerous public records of the democratic government

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

inscribed on stone, and other forms of archaeological evidence (mostly discovered in the American excavations of the Athenian Agora, beginning in the 1930s), the formal institutions of Athenian democracy are now quite well understood. Until the 1970s, standard surveys of Athenian democracy emphasized the fth century, the golden age of Pericles (e.g., Hignett 1952). Due in substantial measure to the groundbreaking work of Mogens Hansen, the emphasis has shifted to the much better documented fourth century B.C., the age of Demosthenes. Hansens (1999) survey is the best available handbook of Athenian democracy. For the purposes of learning from democracy, both the developed fourthcentury institutional apparatus itself, and historical studies of the developmental process that contributed to the making of that apparatus, are of value. Among general accounts of democratic institutions and their development, Sinclair (1988), focusing on the role of participation, and Ostwald (1986), on historical development to the end of the fth century, are outstanding. For todays student of democratic practice, the most striking formal Greek institution is the citizen Assembly. The Assembly met (in the mid-fourth century) some 40 times each year to deal with all aspects of state policy; approximately 60008000 citizens attended each meeting (Hansen 1987). How could thousands of amateursopenly debating complex matters such as taxation, diplomacy, and military appropriationsmake policy for a complex state? Contemporary experience and experiments with deliberative groups lead some modern commentators to doubt that deliberation is likely to be of positive value (e.g., Sunstein 2007). Yet Athens out-performed its rivals on various measures of overall state ourishing (Ober 2008). The answer is found in several aspects of democracy as a system of governance: formal institutions, rhetoric and leadership, citizen identity, and civic education. The system as a whole promoted the development of substan-

tial agreement across a diverse population of citizens on core values, while encouraging debate on particulars. It sustained decisionmaking practices that enabled effective policy formation and timely implementation. Athenian democracy lacked any formal system of checks and balances, even after the important legal reforms of the late fth and early fourth centuries had established a formal distinction between laws (nomoi, passed exclusively by formally constituted bodies of lawmakers) and decrees ( ps phismata, e ordinarily passed by the citizen Assembly; Ostwald 1986). In stark contrast to modern democratic systems, Athenian government bodies did not develop strong institutional identities (Gomme 1951). Most government bodies had a stable membership only for very short periodsordinarily not longer than a year, and sometimes, as in the case of the Assembly, for only a day. Many government ofces were lled by lotteries rather than by elections. Terms in ofce were ordinarily limited to a year; iteration in ofce seems to have been relatively rare (the board of generals and certain nancial magistrates are exceptions) All government ofcials were subject to strict accountability procedures. There was little motivation or opportunity for coordinated strategic behavior to enhance the relative power of a given body. In making a participatory Greek democracy work, the key institution was a popular deliberative council chosen from the entire citizen body. The Greek recognition of the centrality of a popular council for democracy is conrmed by a recently discovered inscription from Eretria. In ca. 340 B.C., the Eretrian democracy promulgated a decree offering rewards to a potential tyrant killer, that is, to anyone who took direct and violent action against those who sought to overthrow the existing democratic government. In a revealing passage, the decree orders all citizens to ght without waiting to receive orders if anyone tries to establish some constitution other than a Council and a prutaneia (a subset of the Council) appointed by lot from all
73

www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Eretrians (Knoeper 2001, 2002; translation from Teegarden 2007). The Athenian Council of 500 citizens was established in the immediate aftermath of the revolution of 508 (Rhodes 1985 remains the essential treatment). The members of the new Council served one-year terms and were selected by lottery, according to a new deme/tribal system. The population of Athens at this time was divided into 139 demes (pre-existing villages or city neighborhoods), which were aggregated into ten new and blatantly articial tribes. From then on, the demes and tribes played important roles in the new political system and became key markers of Athenian identity (Osborne 1985). Anderson (2003) emphasizes the importance of the immediate postrevolutionary institutional changes for creating an imagined political community of citizens. The new tribes were not territorially contiguous; each tribe drew about one third of its membership from demes located in coastal, inland, and urbanized regions of Athenian territory. The Council of 500 was made up of ten 50man delegationsone delegation from each of the ten newly created tribes. The members of each tribal delegation were in turn selected at deme level. Each year every deme chose by lot a certain number of Councilors on the basis of its citizen population. Each tribal team of 50 spent a tenth of the year in presidencya primary role in the Councils main function of setting the agenda for the meetings of the citizen Assembly, as well as special responsibility for diplomacy and day-to-day administration of the polis. No citizen served more than two terms on the Council, and terms were in practice (and perhaps by law) nonconsecutive. The experience of service on the Council was a common one. Although estimates vary with population models (see Hansen 1986b), it is certain that at least one third of all Athenian citizens who lived past the age of thirty (the minimum age for service) would have served a term on the Council. The point is that a very high percentage of mature male Athenians had the re74 Ober

markable experience of spending a substantial amount of time engaged directly in the most important work of their polis (Ober 2006b). The intermixing of men from different villages and different geographic regions, along with the strong social incentives of useful contacts and public honors (Ober 2008, ch. 4) served to break down insular, local strongtie networks. As a result, the Council effectively aggregated dispersed knowledge (cf. Anderson 2006), built practical experience in cooperative and public joint action, and gave reasonably effective direction to the mass meetings of the Assembly. Because the agenda for each Assembly meeting was set, and recommendations on many key items were formulated by, a representative cross-section of the entire native male population of the polis, the system was resistant to elite capture. Moreover, because so many Athenians had the educational experience of serving for a year on the Council, and because after his year as Councilor an Athenian might well serve in other public ofces, all other Athenian formal institutions were at least partly staffed by men with very substantial experience in the direct and daily workings of the democratic government. The army, the Assembly, the Peoples Courts, the many boards of magistrates, all potentially beneted from the experience and contacts of former Councilors. Gomme (1951) accurately describes the Council of 500 as a linchpin institution. It is not hard to see why the democrats of Eretria so easily identied democracy with a Council-centered constitution and contrasted that constitution with oligarchy and tyranny. The administration of law in democratic Athens was primarily in the hands of the Peoples Courts. Large juries (200+ jurors) listened to oral arguments made by litigants in both civil and criminal cases and voted on the outcome. The past 15 years have seen rst-rate work on Greek law generally (Gagarin & Cohen 2005) and on Athenian law in particular. Todd (1993) argues persuasively that democratic Athenian law has a very strongly proceduralist emphasisthat

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

is, it is concerned with establishing fair rules for resolving disputes and prosecuting criminal wrongdoing, rather than seeking substantively just outcomes (although see Carey 1998 for important qualications). This ts well with the arguments of social psychologist Tom R. Tyler and his collaborators (Lind & Tyler 1988, Tyler 1990, Tyler & Huo 2002), who suggest that a procedural approach to law can produce social goods even if outcomes are not always consistent with distributive ideals of justice. Lanni (2006) emphasizes that Athenian juries were allowed extensive scope for discretionary decision making, which she opposes to the standard modern understanding of the rule of law as legislatively framing the law to minimize discretion. Lanni also notes, however, that in maritime cases, in which individuals involved in long-distance trade were the litigants, discretion was limited and predictability of outcome appears to have been the primary goal. Rather than viewing Athenian law as moving developmentally from a more primitive discretionary approach to an advanced rule of law approach, Lanni argues for a mixed legal regime, in which judicial discretion was recognized as a fundamental and valuable legal principle. The system implicitly acknowledged that predictability and discretion were each of primary value in particular legal venues. Allen (2000) also rejects an evolutionary interpretation, arguing that Athenian law deliberately retained a role for the emotion of righteous angera conclusion that illuminates the modern practice of victim testimony at sentencing hearings. Schwartzberg (2004, 2007) has made important contributions to the study of democracy and law by explaining the exceptional cases in which the Athenians used legal entrenchment clauses. She notes that the capacity for legal innovation was, in antiquity, a well understood strength of the Athenian political system. Athenians employed entrenchment clauses, Schwartzberg shows, only in cases in which credible precommitment (to allies in foreign policy contexts and to non-

Athenian traders in a mercantile context) was especially important and especially difcult to establish otherwise. Democratic decision making in Assembly, Council, and Peoples Courts was predicated on public speech making, that is, on the public practice of rhetoric. Athenian democracy and Greek political and legal rhetoric are very closely identiedoften negatively, largely because of Platos highly inuential equation of rhetoric with the deceptive misuse of a technical skill that is antithetical to the pursuit of truth. Platos case against rhetoric has been restored to its original argumentative context by Nightingale (1995), Wardy (1996), and Ober (1998). The past 20 years have seen a revival of the study of Greek rhetoric as an essential component of a vibrant democratic political culture, and as an effective means for exploring decision options in mass fora in which the deliberative ideal of each individual expressing an opinion is not feasible. Ober (1989) notes that in the Athenian Assembly, Council, and lawcourts, mass audiences judged and responded vocally to speeches. As a result, elite speakers who hoped to win the audiences approval were constrained to express allegiance to cherished values. This audience-responsecentered model of mass-elite rhetorical interaction was elaborated by Cohen (1995), Yunis (1996), and Hesk (2000). However, KalletMarx (1994) argues that elite leaders controlled the rhetorical situation through their monopoly of expertise, especially in the area of nance. This model is disputed by Peter J. Rhodes (in an unpublished manuscript) and by Ober (2008). Worthington (1994) collects a number of valuable essays on the practice of rhetoric in Greek deliberative and legal contexts. The famous Athenian practice of ostracism is a striking example of a mass nondeliberative decision-making process. Each year, the Athenian Assembly voted whether to hold an ostracism. If the vote was positive, each citizen had the opportunity to cast a vote (in the form of a sherd of potteryostrakon inscribed with the name of an individual) for
75

www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

expelling a citizen from the polis for 10 years. The winner (the recipient of the plurality of votes) need not have been accused, much less convicted, of a crime. His property was not forfeit, and his relatives could remain if they chose. Recent archaeological investigations in the Kerameikos district of Athens have greatly increased the physical evidence (inscribed ostraka) for this practice. By taking account of all the relevant evidence and analyzing ostracism in the context of interelite struggles and the common use of mass exile as a political weapon by victors in Greek factional struggles, Forsdyke (2005) has put the study of ostracism and democracy on a new footing. She explains the Assemblys annual decision of whether to hold an ostracism, and the occasional actual ostracisms (only 15 recorded), as a ritual through which the mass of ordinary Athenian citizens reminded Athenian elites of the power of the people to intervene in interelite conicts if and when those conicts threatened the stability of the polis. Forsdyke argues that the Athenian Revolution itself, and thus the origin of democracy, is best understood as a mass intervention in what had been an exclusively elite eld of political competitionand that the signal success of Athenian democracy was in the regime stabilization that resulted from the credible threat of mass intervention. Ostracism is notable because, among other reasons, it involves writing. The Athenian democracy produced an unusually large amount of writing. Classical Athens was the Greek worlds major center of literary production, but it was also distinctive for what archaeologists call the epigraphic habit of inscribing public decisions on stone and displaying them publicly. The strong association between this epigraphic habit and democracy has been analyzed in detail by Hedrick (1999), who notes not only the extent of Athenian epigraphic production but also the presence of formulae of disclosureformulaic language to the effect that the inscription has been produced and displayed specically to make its contents transparently available to
76 Ober

anyone who wishes to know what has been decided.

CIVIC IDENTITY AND VALUES

Citizenship, civic identity, and civic education are major areas in which the study of ancient democracy has been widely recognized as having value for modern assessments of how democracy works and why. Connor (1987) pioneered the use of cultural anthropology to explain how ancient Greek civic identity was constructed through public rituals, especially processions. Manvilles (1990) important book on the origins of citizenship at Athens develops an anthropological model, focusing on the signicance of the Solonian and Cleisthenic reforms for the construction of strong civic bonds. Several collections of essays are particularly valuable. Editors Dougherty & Kurke (1993) unite Connors Geertzian anthropological approach with literary approaches to new historicism; Boegehold & Scafuro (1994) offer seminal essays on Athenian identity and civic ideology. Too (2001) and Poulakos & Depew (2004) include important essays on democratic Athenian civic education, focusing on how citizens at Athens were educated by working the machine of democratic institutions and by attending to legal and political rhetoric. Many of the works discussed below under the heading Democracy and Culture are also centrally concerned with how democratic civic identity was formed and challenged. Among the key debates in recent work on Greek democratic civic ideology is whether it represented a substantially new and distinctively demotic political psychology (as argued, for example, by Ober 1989 and Manville 1990), or whether Athenian civic ideology and the identities it formed remained captive to a hierarchical and aristocratic worldview. In an inuential study of the Athenian institution of the Funeral Oration (delivered by a prominent orator to commemorate the sacrice of Athenian soldiers who had died in a

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

given year), Loraux (1986) argues that democratic discourse remained captive to an earlier aristocratic vocabulary of worth. Wohl (1996, 2002) employs a Lacanian psychoanalytic model to make a similar point. On the other side of the debate, Farrar (1988) forcefully argues that identiable forms of democratic thinking orginated in the fth century in Athens as new ways to conceptualize leadership, human potential, and the public sphere. Ancient commentators on democracy consistently equate democratic government with the values of freedom and equality. The fullest contemporary discussion of the Greek idea of freedom is by Raaaub (2004, an updated version of a book published in German in 1985), who argues that the concept of freedom only gained currency in the context of the Greek wars against the Persians in the early fth century and that ideas of individual freedom were developed out of the idea of the freedom of the polis. Sociologist Orlando Patterson (1991) argues, however, that the origins of the Greek idea of freedom lie in the juridical condition of slavery, and thus suggests that a concern for individual freedom arose considerably earlier. In a related line of inquiry, Hansen (1989, 1996) seeks to refute Berlins (1959) inuential claim that the ancients knew nothing of negative liberty by showing that the liberty of the citizen against intrusive state magistrates was an important aspect of the Athenian understanding of democratic freedom. Saxonhouse (2006) fruitfully focuses on free speech in Athens as a rejection of traditional conceptions of the shameful. Wallace (1994, 1996) argues that the Athenian commitments to freedom of thought and freedom of behavior were robust, in some ways more so than in modern democracies with their concern for regulating (e.g., sexual) morality. In work complementary to that of Hedrick (1999), Harris (1994) connects Athenian commitment to freedom of public information to democratic accountability. Unlike freedom, equality, as a value and social practice, was not uniquely associated in Greek culture with democracy. Morris

(1996) argues that an analogue of what Dahl (1989) called the strong principle of equality was the common currency of predemocratic Greek republicanism. Cartledge (1996) contrasts the strong Spartan conception of equality as all the way down social and behavioral similarity among a citizen body with more constrained Athenian notions of political equality and equal right to engage in public speech. Ostwald (1996, cf. 2000b) contrasts Greek and contemporary American conceptions of equality, emphasizing that the Greeks predicated the potential for equality upon a prior condition of freedom (nonslavery). Cavanaugh (2003), a classically trained legal scholar, discusses the relationship between the maintenance of political equality at Athens and the practice of differentially taxing the wealthy; she uses this history to argue against the revision of progressive taxation in favor of a at tax. In a quite different vein, Miller (2000) suggests that the prevalent Greek practice of nudity in sports anticipated democratic commitment to equality of opportunity: Public nudity advertises that beneath our clothing, which is likely to signal class difference, men are all about the same. Pritchard (2003), however, argues that competitive athletics remained a highly class-specic activity in Greek culture, and an aristocratic prerogative. The contrast between political equality within the (native male) citizenry and inequality outside it is emphasized by Roberts (1996), and contemporary criticisms of the limitations of classical democratic equality are discussed below. Although freedom and equality were, in antiquity as in modernity, the primary values associated with democracy, Greek democracy was associated with other fundamental values as well. In a study of Athenian laws against hubris (disrespecting; see the massive study of Fisher 1992), Ober (1996, ch. 7) emphasizes the concern of the democracy for protecting personal dignity and promoting the value of mutual recognition. Balot (2001a) discusses Greek attitudes toward the vice of greed and the ways in which democratic institutions and
77

www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

culture attempted to control both overreaching in respect to fair distribution of goods (seeking to grab more than ones fair share) and unhealthy overindulgence in pleasures. Balot (2001b, 2004a, 2004b) also distinguishes democratic couragea matter of risks rationally chosenfrom standard Greek conceptions of courage as innate or inculcated by disciplinary education. He sees the dark side of democratic courage as aggressive militarism. One of the key roles of Athenian democratic political culture was to foster commitment to self-control and public good-seeking, on the one hand, and to allowing people to do pretty much as they wished, on the other. Manville (1997) notes that this both/and approach was essential to uniting democratic ideology with day-to-day practice. Manville & Ober (2003) suggest that a variety of general political principles (including transparency, accountability, closure, and jurisdiction) are implicit in the practices common to democratic institutions.

CRITICISM OF DEMOCRACY, ANCIENT AND MODERN

The apparent contradictions among the values and behaviors endorsed or permitted by the democratic regime provided fertile ground for intellectual critics, which in turn has provided ammunition for critics of popular rule. Saxonhouse (1996) surveys some of the main lines of argument. Despite the notorious trial of Socrates (see below), the Athenian democratic regime actually tolerated, indeed in certain ways actively encouraged, a very substantial level of political criticism. The dramas presented in the Theater of Dionysus were chosen by a lotteried magistrate and nanced by the state system of liturgiesspecial taxes on the very wealthy (Christ 2006). Comedies were typically sharply critical of political practices of the citizen masses and their leaders alike. While some scholars still regard even comedy as essentially irrelevant to democratic politics (Rhodes 2003b), others point to the deep
78 Ober

political critique of comedy (Rosenbloom 2002, 2004). Moreover, a considerable body of scholarship argues that Athenian tragedies, like comedies, were fundamentally involved in a critical enterpriseinvestigating and challenging core democratic values (Euben 1986, 1990, Goldhill & Osborne 1999). Ober (1998) argues for the emergence, in the late fth and fourth centuries, of a selfconscious critical community of Athenian intellectualsincluding dramatists, philosophers, historians, and rhetoriciansengaged in what amounted to a collaborative project to expose inherent contradictions in the democratic political order. Intellectual critics of democracy pointed to a number of ways in which democracy fell short. For example, some claimed the democratic approach to distributive justice erred in seeking to distribute goods equally to persons who were inherently unequal. Some of the sophists (e.g., Thrasymachus, as famously depicted in Platos Republic) contended that democracy conicted with a natural order in which the strong dominated the weak and enjoyed a superabundant share of goods. The uneasy relationship between democracy and natural hierarchy is a staple of Straussian political theorizing. Platos Socrates in the Republic argued that democracy violated the rst principle of justice by encouraging individuals to engage in more than one domain of activity. The concern with diversity, social and political, was a leitmotif of Greek critical thought (Saxonhouse 1992). Aristotle in the Politics was concerned that democracy encouraged majorities to employ arbitrary and selsh rather than consistent and fair criteria when making judgments with public import, and led majorities to seek their own factional good to the detriment of the public good. The problem of greed was another fertile source of complaint. Thucydides and Aristophanes each emphasized ways in which democratic culture stimulated an unhealthy desire for excessive consumption and possession (Balot 2001a). Contemporary political theorists have paid special attention to the interchange between

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Athenian democratic political culture and a critical sensibility, which yielded distinctive insights into political psychology and practice, and have stressed the value of those insights for rethinking modern democracy. Recent work by political theorists on Plato has been surveyed in this journal by Allen (2006). Euben (2003), Wallach (2001), and Monoson (2000) are particularly concerned to relate Platohis dialogic practice as well as his philosophical ideasto the practice of modern democracy. There has been renewed attention among classicists (Ludwig 2002) and political theorists (Zumbrunnen 2006) to Aristophanes as a critic of democracy with unique and valuable insights for students of democracy. Aristotles attempt to create a democracy of distinction by merging democratic with aristocratic elements is fruitfully explored by Frank (2005). Socrates and his relationship to the democratic city, and especially his trial and execution, were matters of central concern to ancient critics of democracy. The gure of Socrates continues to loom large in contemporary discussions of the moral and practical value of Greek democracy. Some contemporary critics regard the trial and execution as clear evidence of Athenian democracys moral turpitude. Samons (2004) offers a bill of particulars on the subject of whats wrong with democracy. He concentrates on the wrongfulness of Socrates conviction but also accuses ancient Greek and modern democracy alike of being inattentive to traditional forms of religious belief, disrespectful of the nuclear family, and insufciently patriotic. At the opposite extreme, but equally polemical, Stone (1988) argues that Socrates was an oligarchic sympathizer who more or less got what was coming to him. Colaiaco (2001) provides a detailed and balanced treatment of the Socrates and Athens question. Schoeld (2002) offers a measured and insightful critique of recent American work on the trial of Socrates; Schoelds (2006) monograph on Platos political thought is superb. For very recent treatments of all aspects of the Socrates prob-

lem, see the essays collected by Kamtekar & Ahbel Rappe (2006). Contemporary criticisms of Athenian democracy tend to focus on its systematic injustice in respect to women and to slaves. Jameson (1978) argues that slaveholding was very widespread, even among lower-class citizens, and was essential to democracy because only slavery could provide the leisure time that allowed lower-class citizens (especially in rural areas) to participate in politics. That argument is challenged by Wood (1988) on the grounds that democracy allowed free citizen-peasants to spend free time in political participation; that time was available to them because democracy prevented the systematic exploitation of peasants by landlords or a rent-seeking government. Osborne (1995, reprinted in Robinson 2004) seeks to demonstrate that Greek slavery was economically productive and thus undergirded both democratic and oligarchic regimes. Review essays by Jameson (1997) and Katz (1999both reprinted in Robinson 2004) explore ways in which the solidarity of the all-male citizen body beneted from the exclusion of women from active political participation, while rejecting earlier views of the strict separation of public and private spheres, and recognizing the prominent public roles Athenian women did play, especially in religion. The questions of ideology and hegemony recur: Loraux (1993) shows how the ideology of autochthony buttressed democratic citizen identity; Morris (1998) seeks to explain the invisibility of distinct womens spaces and slave culture in archaeological excavations by reference to the robustness of the citizen-centered ideology.

WAR, ECONOMY, CULTURE

Violent conict was endemic among the Greek city-states and fairly often ended in state-death. Although many interstate conicts, especially before the mid-fth century B.C., were more or less ritualized contests with little demographic impact
79

www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

(Connor 1988), some battles had extremely high casualties (Krentz 1985, 2002), and the extermination or enslavement of entire state populations was a realistically possible outcome of interstate war. The relationship between democracy and warfare has been a feature of analytic work on democracy from the very beginning and is prominent in the work of both Herodotus and Thucydides. Both these founders of the conjoined Greek historical [and social scientic (Ober 2006c)] enterprise were interested in explaining how the democracy might affect military capacity; contemporary work has continued to focus on this problem. The apparent correlation between democratic regime and greater military capacity in modern warfare is traced by Reiter & Stam (2002). Their explanations of democratic military success have analogues in arguments developed by classical historians. First: enhanced morale of free men, self-consciously ghting wars of liberation (Hansen 1999). Next: much higher mobilization rates, following upon the bargaining between classes, with the result that political participation on the part of lower classes is offered in exchange for their willingness to ght (especially as rowers in the eet: Scheidel 2005, Morris 2005b). Third: the superior ability of democracies to make effective use of dispersed knowledge and thereby to inaugurate more innovative and exible strategies (Ober 2008). A closely related issue is the relationship between democracy and imperialism. Finley (1978, 1983) notes that both lowerand upper-class Athenians proted from the empire and regarded the increased wealth that came to Athens with imperialism as essential to the survival of democratic institutions. Raaaub (1996, 1998) argues that the institutions of democracy emerged only after 462 B.C., once the Athenian imperial project of the mid-fth century was well under way. He adds that lower-class Athenians (thetes) remained in some ways marginal, and were grudgingly acknowledged by citizens of the hoplite class only because they pro-

vided manpower essential to empire building. Hansen (1999), however, points to the continuing vigor of democratic institutions in the (largely) postimperial fourth century. While a ghost of empire (Badian 1995) continued to haunt the Athenian democratic consciousness, fourth-century Athens drew little revenue from imperial sources, and its democratic institutions remained vibrant. The link between democracy and empire had become largely one of historical memory; whether that memory evoked nostalgia or disgust was one of the sources of attitudinal diversity with which Athenian democracy contended. International relations theorists have long been drawn to the Greek poleis, which offer a nonmodern eld on which to test the robustness of their theories. Collections of essays edited by Lebow & Strauss (1991) and McCann & Strauss (2001) bring classicists together with international relations theorists. Lebow & Strauss explore the nature of bipolar international systems in which one of the players is a democracy, and McCann & Strauss investigate the relationship between democratic regimes and warusing the test cases of the Peloponnesian and Korean Wars. The world of the city-states is particularly salient to scholars interested in the democratic peace. Robinson (2001a, 2006) explores the issue in detail, arguing that the Greek democracies did in fact go to war with one another quite frequently. Robinson suggests that this does not necessarily undercut the validity of a modern democratic peace because of the differences between ancient and modern democracies, and the fact that Greek city-states focused intensely on local interests rather than on constitutional issues. Weart (2001) argues, against Robinson, that Athens (and by extrapolation other Greek democracies) did not perceive other democratic city-states as democratic; Robinson (2001b) counters that there is no evidence for that supposition. Greek democracies could be intensely and successfully aggressive. Morris (2005a) notes that the empire founded by democratic Athens was by far

80

Ober

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

the largest and most successful imperial enterprise ever sustained by a Greek city-state. In the past 15 years there has been an extraordinary resurgence of work on the ancient Greek economy, much of it challenging the long-standard position (Finley 1999) that the ancient economy was entirely embedded in social relations, that market exchanges were limited and local, and that given the lack of capitalization and sustained technological innovation, the economy was essentially stagnant. Democratic Athens in the postimperial fourth century provides an important test case. A series of works by Cohen (e.g., 1992, 2000) shows that fourth-century Athens was well supplied with institutions, both formal (special legal provisions) and informal (unregulated banks), that supported a vigorous market economy with some features of modern market economiesnotably sophisticated credit instruments and impersonal third-party exchanges. Burke (1985, 1992) attributes Athens very high level of public wealth in the 330s, comparable to that of the high imperial era of the 430s, to its success in attracting transit trade. The democratic state actively and self-consciously promoted trade, for example, by providing relatively impartial dispute-resolution procedures (Lanni 2006), and by providing approvers of silver coinage who could guarantee traders that the specie in which they traded was good (van Alfen 2005). Cohen (2000) has linked this expansion of access to economic and legal institutions to a generally expansive democratic Athenian attitude toward citizenship. His conception of the Athenian nation as based on residence rather than on nativity, which would effectively eliminate the distinction between longterm resident and native-born Athenian, has, however, been challenged (e.g., Lape 2003). Among the most important insights of work on embedded aspects of the Athenian economy (Millett 1989; cf. ZelnickAbramowitz 2000) is that democracy at Athens effectively limited the development of formal relationships of personal patron-

age that gure so largely in other premodern economies. Democratic Athenian taxation policies have attracted the interest of political scientists and economists. Lyttkens (1992, 1994, 1997) has examined Athenian liturgies and other forms of taxation on wealth as examples of bargaining between elites and lower classes; he suggests that democratic politicians catered to their lower-class constituents by seeking to establish a predatory regime of taxation, but that over time, elite bargaining power led to a more restrained taxation regime and lower transaction costs. Brooks Kaiser (2007), an economist, has developed a game theoretic model to explain the operations of the Athenian trierarchic (warship preparation tax) liturgy system. She analyzes the Athenian citizens incentives within a game of asymmetric information to explain the democratic systems relative success at meeting the conicting goals of efciency, feasibility, and budget balance. The relationship between democracy and culture has been a productive area of research for the past two decades. Classicists have analyzed how political institutions and social relations unique to democracy (including the issues of identity and ideology noted above) affected the emergence and development of cultural expression: performance/music, visual arts, architecture, literature, and philosophy. Good introductions to this body of work are the essay collections edited by Goldhill & Osborne (1994), Coulson (1994), and Boedeker & Raaaub (1998). Castriota (1992) looks at how the fth-century Athenian democracy recongured mythic narrative in public art, notably architectural sculpture. Neer (2002) argues that the Athenian Revolution of the late sixth century fostered the emergence of radical experiments in vase painting (the so-called Pioneer Group of vase painters)with the new artistic forms borrowing from the new social relations made possible by the institutions of democracy. A collection of essays edited by Winkler & Zeitlin (1990) broke

www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy

81

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

new ground in pursuing the question of how democracy affected comedy, tragedy, choral singing, and dancing. Subsequent studies (notably Goldhill & Osborne 1999, Wilson 2000) have made a very strong case that democracy had a pervasive effect on the evolving form and content of dramatic and choral culture. Classical scholars have also been important participants in discussions of how political forms affect the development of political space (see, e.g., Detienne 2001).

CODA: THE AMERICAN EPHEBE

Ancient Greek religion was very different from the powerful religious traditions that have shaped the modern world. There was no question of separating religion from the state, and basic questions of what would count as orthodoxy, conversion, or even belief take on fundamentally different meanings in the ancient Greek context (Price 1999 offers a thoughtful introduction). All students of ancient Greek politics acknowledge that religious ritual remained a highly visible aspect of democratic Athenian public practice, but there is no scholarly consensus on the actual importance of religion to Greek democracy, or the impact of democracy on religious belief or expression. Bowden (2005) argues that communicating with the gods and doing their will was the most important undertaking of the democratic state. Other scholars, by contrast, emphasize the ways in which religious ritual furthered civic purposes (Zaidman & Schmitt-Pantel 1992, Parker 1996). A notable characteristic of the democratic Athenian approach to religion was the states willingness to accept new gods into the communitybut only if the god had been ofcially granted entry (and the relevant community of worshippers had been granted the right to own property on which a new temple could be constructed) by a vote of the democratic Assembly (Garland 1992). It might appear that, given the contrasts between ancient and modern understandings

of religion, religious-civic ritual is one area in which modernity has little to learn from Greek antiquity. Yet Hedrick (2004) has recently brought to light an American appropriation of a highly distinctive Athenian religious ritual: the Oath of the Ephebes. In the later fourth century B.C. (and perhaps much earlier), eighteen-year old Athenian males who were being inducted into military service took a sacred oath. In the middle decades of the twentieth century, students at a number of American colleges and universities were made to chant the ephebic oath:
I will not disgrace my sacred arms/ nor desert my comrade, wherever/ I am stationed./ I will ght for things sacred/ and things profane./ And both alone and with all to help me/ I will transmit my fatherland not diminished/ but greater and better than before./ I will obey/ the ruling magistrates/ who rule reasonably/ and I will observe the established laws/ and whatever laws in the future/ aay be reasonably established./ If any person seek to overturn the laws,/ both alone and with all to help me,/ I will oppose him./ I will honor the religion of my fathers./ I call to witness the Gods. . ./ The borders of my fatherland,/ The wheat, the barley, the vines,/ And the trees of the olive and the g. (Transl. Clarence A. Forbes, punctuation modied; in Swift 1947, p. 4)

The explicit intention of university administrators who promoted this startling recreation of an ancient Greek ritual was to promote in the citizens of a modern state an active civic spirit capable of sustaining a great democratic nation through periods of military and social crisis. Although the chanting of the ephebic oath seems no longer to be practiced on American campuses, the persistence of a concern for uniting civic culture with democratic institutions is one reason that we moderns continue to learn from the ancient Greeks.

82

Ober

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED
Adrados FR. 1997. Democracia y Literatura en la Atenas Cl sica. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. a 263 pp. Allen D. 2000. Changing the authoritative voice: Lycurgus Against Leocrates. Class. Antiq. 19:533 Allen D. 2006. Platonic quandaries: recent scholarship on Plato. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 9:12741 Anderson E. 2006. The epistemology of democracy. Episteme: J. Soc. Epistemol. 3:822 Anderson G. 2003. The Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Political Community in Ancient Attica, 508490 B.C. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press. xvii, 307 pp. Badian E. 1995. The ghost of empire. Reections on Athenian foreign policy in the fourth century B.C. In Die Athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform?, ed. W Eder, pp. 79106. Stuttgart: Steiner Balot RK. 2001a. Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. x, 291 pp. Balot RK. 2001b. Pericles anatomy of democratic courage. Am. J. Philol. 122:50525 Balot RK. 2004a. The dark side of democratic courage. Soc. Res. 71:73106 Balot RK. 2004b. Courage in the democratic polis. Class. Q. 54:40623 Balot RK. 2006. Greek Political Thought. Maldon, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Berlin I. 1959. Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford, on 31 October 1958. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. 57 pp. Bleicken J. 1985. Die Athenische Demokratie. Paderborn: Schoningh. 432 pp. Blok J, Lardinois A, eds. 2006. Solon: New Historical and Philological Perspectives. Leiden: E.J. Brill Boedeker DD, Raaaub KA, eds. 1998. Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. viii, 504 pp. Boegehold AL, Scafuro AC. 1994. Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology. Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. 239 pp. Bowden H. 2005. Classical Athens and the Delphic Oracle: Divination and Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. xviii, 188 pp. Brock R, Hodkinson S. 2000. Introduction: alternatives to the democratic polis. In Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, ed. R Brock, S Hodkinson, pp. 131. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Bulwer-Lytton EGD, Murray O. 2004. Athens: Its Rise and Fall, with Views of the Literature, Philosophy and Social Life of the Athenian People. London: Routledge. xviii, 610 pp. Burke EM. 1985. Lycurgan nances. Greek, Roman, Byzantine Stud. 26:25164 Burke EM. 1992. The economy of Athens in the classical era: some adjustments to the primitivist model. Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. 122:199226 Camassa G. 2007. Atene: La Costruzione Della Democrazia. Roma: LErma di Bretschneider. 125 pp. Carey C. 1998. The shape of Athenian laws. Class. Q. 48:93109 Cartledge P. 1996. Comparatively equal. See Ober & Hedrick 1996, pp. 17586. NJ Cartledge P. 2001. Spartan Reections. London: Duckworth. xii, 276 pp.
www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy 83

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Castriota D. 1992. Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Ofcial Art in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens. Madison.: Univ. Wisc. Press. xii, 337 pp. Cavanaugh MB. 2003. Democracy, equality, and taxes. Ala. Law Rev. 54:41581 Christ MR. 2006. The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Cohen D. 1995. Law, Violence, and Community in Classical Athens. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xii, 214 pp. Cohen EE. 1992. Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xviii, 288 pp. Cohen EE. 2000. The Athenian Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Colaiaco J. 2001. Socrates against Athens: Philosophy on Trial. New York and London: Routledge Connor WR. 1987. Tribes, festivals, and processions: civic ceremonial and political manipulation in archaic Greece. J. Hellenic Stud. 107:4050 Connor WR. 1988. Early Greek land warfare as symbolic expression. Past Present 119:327 Coulson WDE, ed. 1994. The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy: Proceedings of an International Conference Celebrating 2500 Years since the Birth of Democracy in Greece, Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 46, 1992. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. viii, 250 pp. Creager ANH, Lunbeck E, Wise MN, eds. 2007. Science without Laws: Model Systems, Cases, Exemplary Narratives. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Dahl RA. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. viii, 397 pp. de Ste. Croix GEM. 1972. The Origins of the Peloponnesian War. London: Duckworth. xii, 444 pp. de Ste. Croix GEM. 1983. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. London: Duckworth. xi, 732 pp. de Ste. Croix GEM. 2004. Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays. Oxford and New York: Oxford Univ. Press. vii, 464 pp. Detienne M. 2001. Public space and political autonomy in early Greek cities. In Public Space and Democracy, ed. M H naff, TB Strong, pp. 4152. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press e Dougherty C, Kurke L, eds. 1993. Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xvi, 266 pp. Dunn J. 1992. Democracy: The Unnished Journey, 508 BC to AD 1993. Oxford and New York: Oxford Univ. Press. xii, 290 pp. Eder W, ed. 1995. Die Athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Vollendung Oder Verfall Einer Verfassungsform? Stuttgart: Steiner. 679 pp. Euben JP, ed. 1986. Greek Tragedy and Political Theory. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. xvii, 315 pp. Euben JP. 1990. The Tragedy of Political Theory: The Road Not Taken. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xvi, 314 pp. Euben JP. 1997. Corrupting Youth: Political Education, Democratic Culture, and Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xvi, 270 pp. Euben JP. 2003. Platonic Noise. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xii, 210 pp. Euben JP, Wallach J, Ober J. 1994. Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction of American Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. vi, 352 pp. Farrar C. 1988. The Origins of Democratic Thinking: The Invention of Politics in Classical Athens. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. x, 301 pp. Finley MI. 1978. The fth-century Athenian empire: a balance sheet. In Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. PDA Garnsey, CR Whittaker, pp. 10326, 30610. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
84 Ober

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Finley MI. 1983. Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. viii, 152 pp. Finley MI. 1985. Democracy Ancient and Modern. London: Hogarth. xii, 191 pp. Finley MI. 1999. The Ancient Economy. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. xxxvi, 262 pp. Fisher NRE. 1992. Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece. Warminster, UK: Aris & Phillips. xvi, 526 pp. Fleck RK, Hanssen FA. 2006. The origins of democracy: a model with application to ancient Greece. J. Law Econ. 49:11546 Forsdyke S. 2005. Exile, Ostracism, and Democracy: The Politics of Expulsion in Ancient Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Frank J. 2005. A Democracy of Distinction: Aristotle and the Work of Politics. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Gagarin M, Cohen D, eds. 2005. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Garland R. 1992. Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion. London: Duckworth. xv, 234 pp. Goldhill S, Osborne R. 1994. Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Cambridgeand New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xiii, 341 pp. Goldhill S, Osborne R, eds. 1999. Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xii, 417 pp. Gomme AW. 1951. The working of the Athenian democracy. History 36:1228 Grote G. 1869. A History of Greece; from the Earliest Period to the Close of the Generation Contemporary with Alexander the Great. 12 vols. London: J. Murray Hansen MH. 1986a. The origin of the term demokratia. Liverpool Class. Mon. 11:3536 Hansen MH. 1986b. Demography and Democracy: The Number of Athenian Citizens in the Fourth Century B.C. Herning, Den.: Systime. 116 pp. Hansen MH. 1987. The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. viii, 249 pp. Hansen MH. 1989. Was Athens a Democracy?: Popular Rule, Liberty, and Equality in Ancient and Modern Political Thought. Copenhagen: R. Danish Acad. Sci. Lett., Commissioner Munksgaard. 47 pp. Hansen MH. 1996. The ancient Athenian and the modern liberal view of liberty as a democratic ideal. See Ober & Hedrick 1996, pp. 91104 Hansen MH. 1999. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Ideology. Norman: Univ. Oklahoma Press. xvi, 447 pp. Hansen MH. 2006. Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Hansen MH, Nielsen TH. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 832 pp. Harris D. 1994. Freedom of information and accountability: the inventory lists of the Parthenon. In Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, ed. R Osborne, S Hornblower, pp. 21326. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Hedrick CW. 1999. Democracy and the Athenian epigraphic habit. Hesperia 68:387439 Hedrick CWJ. 2004. The American ephebe: the ephebic oath, US education and nationalism. Class. World 97:384407 Hesk J. 2000. Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Hignett C. 1952. A History of the Athenian Constitution to the end of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. x, 420 pp.
www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy 85

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Holkeskamp K-J. 1992. Written law in archaic Greece. Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc. 38:87117 Holkeskamp K-J. 1999. Schiedsrichter, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im Archaischen Griechenland. Stuttgart: Steiner. 343 pp. Jameson MH. 1978. Agriculture and slavery in classical Athens. Class. J. 73:2245 Jameson MH. 1997. Women and democracy in fourth century Athens. In Esclavage, ed. P Brul , e pp. 95117. Rennes: Presses Univ. Rennes Kagan D. 1991. Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy. New York: Free Press. xv, 287 pp. Kaiser BA. 2007. The Athenian trierarchy: mechanism design for the private provision of public goods. J. Econ. Hist. 67:44580 Kallet-Marx L. 1994. Money talks: rhetor, demos, and resources of the Athenian Empire. In Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, ed. R Osborne, S Hornblower, pp. 22752. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Kamtekar R, Ahbel-Rappe S, eds. 2006. A Companion to Socrates. Malden, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell. xxiv, 533 pp. Katz M. 1999. Women and democracy in ancient Greece. In Contextualizing Classics [Festschrift for John Peradotto], ed. M Falkner, N Felson, D Konstan, pp. 4168. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleeld Kinzl KH, Raaaub KA, eds. 1995. Demokratia: Der Weg zur Demokratie bei den Griechen. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft. vi, 452 pp. Knoeper D. 2001. Loi dEretrie contre la tyrannie et loligarchie, I. Bull. Corresp. Hellenique 125:195238 Knoeper D. 2002. Loi dEretrie contre la tyrannie et loligarchie, II. Bull. Corresp. Hellenique 126:149204 Kochin MS. 2002. Gender and Rhetoric in Platos Political Thought. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. ix, 164 pp. Krentz P. 1985. Casualties in hoplite battles. Greek, Roman, Byzantine Stud. 26:1320 Krentz P. 2002. Fighting by the rules: the invention of the hoplite agon. Hesperia 71:2339 Kurke L. 1992. The politics of habrosyn . Class. Antiq. 11:91120 e Lanni AM. 2006. Law and Justice in the Courts of Classical Athens. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Lape S. 2003. Racializing democracy: the politics of sexual reproduction in classical Athens. Parallax 9:5263 Lavelle BM. 2005. Fame, Money, and Power: The Rise of Peisistratos and Democratic Tyranny at Athens. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press. xiv, 370 pp. Lebow RN. 2003. The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xvii, 405 pp. Lebow RN, Strauss BS, eds. 1991. Hegemonic Rivalry: From Thucydides to the Nuclear Age. Boulder, CO: Westview. xii, 295 pp. Lind EA, Tyler TR. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum. xii, 267 pp. Loraux N. 1986. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. viii, 479 pp. Loraux N. 1993. The Children of Athena: Athenian Ideas About Citizenship and the Division Between the Sexes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xvii, 271 pp. Ludwig PW. 2002. Eros and Polis: Desire and Community in Greek Political Theory. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xiii, 398 pp. Lyttkens CH. 1992. Effects of the taxation of wealth in Athens in the fourth century B.C. Scand. Econ. Hist. Rev. 40:320
86 Ober

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Lyttkens CH. 1994. A predatory democracy? An essay on taxation in classical Athens. Explor. Econ. Hist. 31:6290 Lyttkens CH. 1997. A rational-actor perspective on the origin of liturgies in ancient Greece. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 153:46284 Manville B. 1997. Pericles and the both/and vision for democratic Athens. In Polis and Polemos: Essays on Politics, War, & History in Ancient Greece, in Honor of Donald Kagan, ed. CD Hamilton, P Krentz, pp. 7384. Claremont, CA: Regina Books Manville B, Ober J. 2003. A Company of Citizens: What the Worlds First Democracy Teaches Leaders about Creating Great Organizations. Boston: Harvard Bus. School Press Manville PB. 1990. The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xiv, 265 pp. Markell P. 2006. The rule of the people: Arendt, Arche, and democracy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 100:114 McCann DR, Strauss BS. 2001. War and Democracy: A Comparative Study of the Korean War and the Peloponnesian War. Armonk, NY: Sharpe. xxviii, 385 pp. McGlew JF. 1993. Tyranny and Political Culture in Ancient Greece. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. vii, 234 pp. Miller SG. 2000. Naked democracy. In Polis and Politics [Festschrift Hansen], ed. P FlenstedJensen, TH Neilsen, L Rubinstein, pp. 27796. Copenhagen: Mus. Tusculanum Press, Univ. Copenhagen Millet PC. 1989. Patronage and its avoidance in classical Athens. In Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. A Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 1548. London: Routledge Millet PC. 2000. Mogens Hansen and the labelling of Athenian democracy. In Polis and Politics [Festschrift Hansen], ed. P Flensted-Jensen, TH Neilsen, L Rubinstein, pp. 33762. Copenhagen: Mus. Tusculanum Press, Univ. Copenhagen Monoson SS. 2000. Platos Democratic Entanglements: Athenian Politics and the Practice of Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xi, 252 pp. Morgan KA. 2003. Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece. Austin: Univ. Texas Press. xxvii, 324 pp. Morris I. 1996. The strong principle of equality and the archaic origins of Greek democracy. See Ober & Hedrick 1996, pp. 1949. NJ Morris I. 1998. Remaining invisible: the archaeology of the excluded in classical Athens. In Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture, ed. SR Joshel, S Murnaghan, pp. 193220. New York: Routledge Morris I. 2005a. The Athenian Empire (478404 B.C.). Princeton/Stanford Work. Pap. Classics 120508 Morris I. 2005b. Military and political participation in archaic-classical Greece. Princeton/ Stanford Work. Pap. Classics 120511 Moss C. 1986. La D mocratie Grecque. Paris: MA Editions. 237 pp. e e N f B. 1986. Von Perikles zu Hitler?: Die Athenische Demokratie und die Deutsche Althistorie bis a 1945. Bern and New York: Lang. 332 pp. Nardi M. 1971. Demos e Kratos; la Fondazione Della Democrazia Ateniese. Pisa: Giardini. 79 pp. Neer R. 2002. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Nelson E. 2004. The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xv, 296 pp. Nightingale AW. 1995. Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xiv, 222 pp.
www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy 87

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Ober J. 1989. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xviii, 390 pp. Ober J. 1996. The Athenian Revolution: Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. 212 pp. Ober J. 1998. Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xiv, 417 pp. Ober J. 2005. Athenian Legacies: Essays in the Politics of Going on Together. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Ober J. 2006a. The original meaning of democracy: capacity to do things, not majority rule. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Philadelphia, PA Ober J. 2006b. Learning from Athens: democracy by design. Boston Rev. 31:1317 Ober J. 2006c. Thucydides and the invention of political science. In Brills Companion to Thucydides, pp. 13159. Leiden: Brill Ober J. 2008. Democracy and Knowledge: Learning and Innovation in Classical Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Ober J, Hedrick CW. 1996. D mokratia: A Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern. e Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xix, 466 pp. Orwin C. 1994. The Humanity of Thucydides. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. x, 235 pp. Osborne R. 1985. Demos, the Discovery of Classical Attika. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xiv, 284 pp. Osborne R. 1995. The economics and politics of slavery at Athens. In The Greek World, ed. A Powell, pp. 2743. London and New York: Routledge Ostwald M. 1986. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society, and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. xxii, 663 pp. Ostwald M. 1996. Shares and rights: citizenship Greek style and American style. See Ober & Hedrick 1996, pp. 4961 Ostwald M. 2000a. Oligarchia: The Development of a Constitutional Form in Ancient Greece. Stuttgart: Steiner Ostwald M. 2000b. Popular sovereignty and the problem of equality. Scr. Class. Isr. 19:113 Parker R. 1996. Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. xxv, 370 pp. Patterson O. 1991. Freedom in the Making of Western Culture. New York: Basic Books. xviii, 487 pp. Pi rart M. 2000. Argos: un autre d mocratie. In Polis and Politics: Studies in Greek History, ed. e e P Flensted-Jensen, TH Neilsen, L Rubinstein, pp. 297314. Copenhagen: Mus. Tusculanum Press, Univ. Copenhagen Poulakos T, Depew D, eds. 2004. Isocrates and Civic Education. Austin: Univ. Texas Press Price SRF. 1999. Religions of the Ancient Greeks. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xii, 217 pp. Pritchard D. 2003. Athletics, education, and participation in classical Athens. In Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, ed. DJ Phillips, D Pritchard, pp. 293349. Swansea: Class. Press of Wales Quillin J. 2002. Achieving amnesty: the role of events, institutions, and ideas. Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. 132:71107 Raaaub K. 1996. Equalities and inequalities in Athenian democracy. See Ober & Hedrick 1996, pp. 13974 Raaaub K. 1998. Power in the hands of the people: foundations of Athenian democracy. In Democracy 2500? Questions and Challenges, ed. I Morris, KA Raaaub, pp. 3166. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
88 Ober

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Raaaub K, Ober J, Wallace RW. 2007. The Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press Raaaub KA. 2004. The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. xii, 420 pp. Reiter D, Stam AC. 2002. Democracies at War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xii, 283 pp. Rhodes PJ. 1985. The Athenian Boule. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. xv, 357 pp. Rhodes PJ. 2003a. Ancient Democracy and Modern Ideology. London: Duckworth. 142 pp. Rhodes PJ. 2003b. Nothing to do with democracy: Athenian drama and the polis. J. Hellenic Stud. 123:10419 Rhodes PJ, ed. 2004. Athenian Democracy. Edinburgh: Univ. Edinburgh Press Roberts JT. 1994. Athens on Trial: The Antidemocratic Tradition in Western Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xviii, 405 pp. Roberts JW. 1996. Comparatively equal: a constant surrounded by ux. See Ober & Hedrick 1996, pp. 187202 Robinson EW. 1997. The First Democracies: Early Popular Government Outside Athens. Stuttgart: Steiner. 144 pp. Robinson EW. 2000. Democracy in Syracuse, 466412 B.C. Harvard Stud. Class. Philol. 100:189205 Robinson EW. 2001a. Reading and misreading the ancient evidence for democratic peace. J. Peace Res. 38:593608 Robinson EW. 2001b. Response to Spencer Weart. J. Peace Res. 38:61517 Robinson EW. 2004. Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings and Sources. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Robinson EW. 2006. Thucydides and democratic peace. J. Military Ethics 5:24353 Robinson EW. 2008. Democracy Beyond Athens: Popular Government in the Greek Classical Age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press Rosenbloom D. 2002. From pon ros to pharmakos: theater, social drama and revolution at e Athens, 428404 BCE. Class. Antiq. 21:283346 Rosenbloom D. 2004. Chr stoi vs pon roi: the ostracism of Hyperbolos and the struggle for e e hegemony in Athens after the death of Perikles, part I. Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. 134:55105 Rowe CJ, Schoeld M. 2000. The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xx, 745 pp. Rutter NK. 2000. Syracusan democracy: most like the Athenian? In Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, ed. R Brock, S Hodkinson, pp. 13751. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Sakellariou MV, ed. 1996. D mocratie Ath nienne et Culture. Athens: Acad. dAth` nes. 344 pp. e e e Samons LJ. 2004. Whats Wrong with Democracy? From Athenian Practice to American Worship. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. xx, 307 pp. Saxonhouse A. 2006. Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Saxonhouse AW. 1992. Fear of Diversity: The Birth of Political Science in Ancient Greek Thought. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. xiv, 253 pp. Saxonhouse AW. 1996. Athenian Democracy: Modern Mythmakers and Ancient Theorists. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Notre Dame Press. x, 173 pp. Scheidel W. 2005. Military commitments and political bargaining in ancient Greece. Princeton/Stanford Work. Pap. Classics 110501 Schoeld M. 2002. Socrates on trial in the USA. In Classics in Progress, ed. TP Wiseman, pp. 26383. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy 89

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Schoeld M. 2006. Plato: Political Philosophy. London and New York: Oxford Univ. Press. x, 384 pp. Schwartzberg M. 2004. Athenian democracy and legal change. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98:31125 Schwartzberg M. 2007. Democracy and Legal Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xii, 228 pp. Sealey R. 1987. The Athenian Republic: Democracy or the Rule of Law? University Park: Penn. State Univ. Press. x, 182 pp. Sinclair RK. 1988. Democracy and Participation in Athens. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xv, 253 pp. Steiner D. 1994. The Tyrants Writ: Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. viii, 279 pp. Stone IF. 1988. The Trial of Socrates. Boston: Little Brown. xi, 282 pp. Stow S. 2007. Pericles at Gettysburg and Ground Zero: tragedy, patriotism, and public mourning. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 101:195208 Sunstein CR. 2007. Deliberating groups versus prediction markets (or Hayeks challenge to Habermas). Episteme: J. Soc. Epistemol. 3:192213 Swift FH. 1947. The Athenian ephebic oath of allegiance in American schools and colleges. University of California Publications in Education 11. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Teegarden D. 2007. Defending Democracy: A Study of Ancient Greek Anti-Tyranny Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Todd SC. 1993. The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. ix, 433 pp. Too YL, ed. 2001. Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Leiden: Brill Tyler TR. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. vii, 273 pp. Tyler TR, Huo YJ. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Found. xvi, 248 pp. Urbinati N. 2002. Mill on Democracy: From the Athenian Polis to Representative Government. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. xii, 293 pp. van Alfen PG. 2000. The owls from the 1973 Iraq hoard. Am. J. Numismatics 12:958 Villa DR. 2000. The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xvi, 304 pp. Wallace RW. 1994. Private lives and public enemies: freedom of thought in classical Athens. In Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology, ed. AL Boegehold, AC Scafuro, pp. 12755. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press Wallace RW. 1996. Law, freedom, and the concept of citizens rights in democratic Athens. See Ober & Hedrick 1996, pp. 10519 Wallach JR. 2001. The Platonic Political Art: A Study of Critical Reason and Democracy. University Park: Penn. State Univ. Press. xi, 468 pp. Wardy R. 1996. The Birth of Rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato, and Their Successors. London and New York: Routledge. viii, 197 pp. Weart SR. 2001. Remarks on the ancient evidence for democratic peace. J. Peace Res. 38:60913 Wilson P. 2000. The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia. The Chorus, the city, and the Stage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Winkler JJ, Zeitlin FI, eds. 1990. Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xi, 405 pp. Wohl V. 1996. Eusebeias kai philotimias: hegemony and democracy at the Panathenaia. Classica et Mediaevalia 47:2588 Wohl V. 2002. Love Among the Ruins: The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. xii, 329 pp.
90 Ober

ANRV344-PL11-04

ARI

31 October 2007

21:20

Wolin SS. 1993. Democracy, electoral and Athenian. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 26:47577 Wolin SS. 1994. Norm and form: the constitutionalizing of democracy. In Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction of American Democracy, ed. JP Euben, J Wallach, J Ober, pp. 2958. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Wolin SS. 1996. Transgression, equality, and voice. See Ober & Hedrick 1996, pp. 6390 Wood EM. 1988. Peasant-Citizen and Slave: The Foundations of Athenian Democracy. London and New York: Verso. x, 210 pp. Worthington I. 1994. Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action. London and New York: Routledge. x, 273 pp. Yunis H. 1996. Taming Democracy: Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. xv, 316 pp. Zaidman LB, Schmitt-Pantel P. 1992. Religion in the Ancient Greek City. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. xx, 278 pp. Zelnick-Abramowitz R. 2000. Did patronage exist in classical Athens? Antiq. Class. 69:6580 Zuckert CH, Zuckert MP. 2006. The Truth About Leo Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. x, 306 pp. Zumbrunnen J. 2006. Fantasy, irony and economic justice in Aristophanes Assemblywomen and Wealth. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 100:31933

www.annualreviews.org What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About Democracy

91